Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 July 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 11

Making a company page

Our company has been around since 1956. We have been mentioned in newspaper articles and have had hundreds of people work for us since our incorporation in 1958. Can I make a page on our company on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernwell (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Take a read of WP:COI and WP:Paid contributions first. The company must satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Then if you still want to proceed start at Draft:your company name here and use the WP:AFC process to get it reviewed. All the writing must be based on what others have written, and not your own personal knowledge. The writing must not be promotional, but be in an encyclopedic style. This last requirement makes it better for outsiders with no connection to write. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think WP:PAID works as a link for paid contributions. If OP does have many newspaper articles to cite as WP:RS, then the business is likely fairly notable and s/he should be WP:BOLD and create WP:FIRSTARTICLE after reading these materials :) SemanticMantis (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree it would be good idea to be bold here. Although not explicitly forbidden, editing let alone creating an article on main space you have such a close connection to is strongly discouraged. As GB said, there's a very good chance the article won't be a good work since doing so even when you decent experience is difficult when you have such a close connection, let alone if you're a new editor. History has shown many editors particularly inexperienced ones simply can't see why their work is promotional to those without a connection. While this is something that other editors may be willing to help them with, they're generally a lot more reluctant to do so when a COI editor has ignored the strong recommendation and decided to create the article themselves instead of creating a draft and following the AFC process. In fact, even if the article is perfect, you'll find that human nature means other editors treat it with great suspicion when you've ignored the AFC process and created a COI article in main space. In other words, the editor shouldn't be bold or create their first article in main space, at most the should create a draft and use the AFC process as recommended by GB, if they really feel it will meet WP:Notability requirements and their sources (i.e. sufficient coverage, not just that it exists) can demonstrate that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, caution is also good, as is drafting in userspace. If OP reads the materials I suggested, then they know the potential problems. It's not too hard to avoid writing promotional material, and if they fail at that or on notability, then the article gets deleted - that's the wiki way. The thing is, for all these AFC, nobody cares, and the backlogs are huge. The best person to create an article is the person who wants the article to exist, knows the material, and is willing to follow our guidelines. I think that person can be OP, if they are willing to learn and read a bit first. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Except history has shown it is actually quite hard for a lot of people. The AFC process may not be perfect, but it's likely to avoid a lot of ill feeling on both sides. Also the OP apparently likes the company, do they really want to give the image to a number of wikipedians that the people who work for it or own it or whatever are spammy idiots? Because that's almost definitely what's going to happen if they do create an article on the company. As I said, there's a good chance it will happen even if they do by some miracle create the perfect article.

The point that you seem to be missing is that the wikipedia way is to use the AFC process when you have a strong COI. Not create an article and piss everyone off because you think you know better. Articles are create and deleted all the time, and while people might get slightly annoyed they normally accepted it as part of life far less so when it's by someone with a strong COI and so seems spammy. In that case even inclusionists tend to be a lot less wiling to help. In other words the wikipedia way isn't ti waste people's time when they might have been willing to help you, if you had a bit of patience and didn't expect everyone to drop all they were doing to help you. Which is basically what you are doing when you force an article on to main space when it shouldn't have been.

People with strong COIs need that realistic expectations that we are not paid, and so aren't always able to help straight away. As I said, when you force people do to try and help you straight away by completely ignoring the norms, then you should expect reasonable push back. You should also expect to seriously dent reputation the company which you supposedly like. And you should reasonably expect you may end up with no article when if you'd just been a little more patient and realised people have jobs and lives, everyone may have ended up happy.

I'd note the primary reason why AFC is backlogged is because people creates pieces of shit and no one can be bothered dealing with them when they come across them. If you actually do manage to create a brilliant pieces of work, it's likely to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

In other words, in the unlikely event that actually happens, maybe you're article will be delayed by a few weeks, but at the same time you haven't pissed everyone off, you haven't dented the reputation of your company unnecessarily, and the article is probably more likely to be recognised properly for what it is, a brilliant piece of work.

If you don't create a brilliant piece of work but create an article with issues, then it may take a while to deal with, but if you're lucky someone will actually get around to it and will be a lot less pissed off and your article has a chance of making it to main space and staying, especially if you're willing to put in the hard yards by taking on the feedback etc. By comparison if you did that in main space yourself, maybe it will be dealt with sooner, but there's a good chance dealing with it is going to deletion even if something was salvageable from your work. Further you may end up sanctioned, your companies reputation is seriously damaged and you've pissed everyone off and you'll likely have difficulty doing anything to help even if you were willing to pull of the hard yards simply because you've been impatient and expected everyone to help you straight away rather than when they had time.

If what you created was an utter POS, well maybe nothing will come from it, and congratulations you've just demonstrated why COI is so backlogged. But at least you haven't pissed everyone off so much, and tainted your companies reputation so bad that people may be reluctant to every actually bother to create one (because who really wants to create an article for a company with spammers?).

In other words, the option is either try to force things along and have a perhaps 99% chance of makings things worse; or actually following the good advice developed for good reason, which may be a bit slower but is far more likely to result in a satisfactory outcome for everyone. Caution is well advice in this case and that means not forcing your way onto main space, anything else isn't bold, it's reckless.

If you really want to push things along, then a far, far better solution is rather than being reckless and forcing a strongly COI article on to main space, learn how wikipedia works by creating other articles on things you are interested in that we lack article on where there isn't such a strong COI. Once you've done enough work, you have a far better chance of creating a good article such that it will be reviewed quickly. And you can even help speed things along by asking someone you know who deals with AFCs to help. It will help of course if you've also dealt with AFCs before yourself so not only have an idea of the pitfalls but know others involved in the thankless task. In fact I'm sure you could come to some reasonable arrangement, e.g. I'll deal with a few article you want to deal with, if you deal with mine.

In other words, if you're really willing to put in the effort, there are plenty of good generous ways you can help speed things along if it really takes more than a few weeks, which as I've already said is probably unlikely if you did create a brilliant work. There is also the bad selfish way of ignoring the good advice and trying to force others to deal with it right now because it's important to you due to your strong COI. Which one do you want people to think of when they think of the company?

Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm assuming since you're commenting on this you understand what the AFC process is, especially since it was linked and strongly hinted at multiple times; namely a defined and simplified way for an editor to create a draft for it to be reviewed at some stage and moved into main space if it's good enough or feedback offered on how to improve if it's not. I assume you do not think that AFC is Wikipedia:Requested articles or one of the other places where people ask for articles to be created or list articles that need to be created (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Articles Needing Creation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stagecraft/Articles Needing Creation). If my assumption was wrong and you have conflated AFC with Requested Articles or whatever, may I respectfully ask you to reconsider whether it's a good idea to be advising COI editors on what they should be doing if you're going to give poor advice due a misunderstanding of what they're being told to do? At they very least, take a read of what you're dissing before you diss it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You could try writing such a page as a draft in your userspace, and then ask if it passes muster. The tricky part always is to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's rules about notability and neutrality. It's really best to not create such an article, but if you do, you must pretend as if you are not an employee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Pretend" might be misunderstood. Ernwell must declare their WP:Paid status, then they may write the article in userspace or as a draft as if they were someone not connected with the company. (I know that's what BB meant.) Dbfirs 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Where did the OP indicate he was being paid? Maybe simply likes the company he works for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If he works for the company, then he is being paid, but I agree that if he is not being paid to publicise the company, then perhaps he need only declare a WP:Conflict of interest. Dbfirs 05:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that to me it sounds like the OP potentially isn't just a regular employee but upper management or even an owner. If they are actually being paid to create the article in some fashion (this would include e.g. if they work in the PR department and are doing it on company time), then creating it in main space is an even more sure way to piss everyone off and seriously dent the companies reputation and ensure there will be no article on the company, even if they do make a proper declaration. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Shipping Container

1) Which company is good and cost effective?

2) Do you buy or rent one? - also, the price variation from the smallest to the largest available. – Transporting from:

a) Bangladesh to UK.

b) Bangladesh to U.S.A. 116.58.205.26 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

See the article Shipping container. Here is a list of shipping agents in Bangladesh. Blooteuth (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)